memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)/archive
Interiors? Where has all this information come from? It certain has not been mentioned in canon. -- Michael Warren 17:39, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Some has, I believe. Most other info is from "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise". Though it contains some stupid mistakes (like claiming the Enterprise was refitted in 2222 or something), it does contain quite an ammount of useful information. Plus quite an lot has been mentioned on the show, or has been seen on the show. Ottens 17:50, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::The info from that book is not a valid resource for use in these articles, so it shouldn't be used. If the info has been mentioned on screen, then fine, but things like the A Deck, B Deck distinctions have not (and since Starfleet uses numerical deck notation, are incorrect anyway). -- Michael Warren 17:56, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: But that book isn't canon, so as usefull as it is The info doesn't count. User: 81.206.223.145 17.55, 23 June 2004 ::::As you wish. I shall remove it. Ottens 17:57, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::Not quite true. There are two instances where decks on the Enterprise were referred to using a alphabetical notation. First, in The Original Series episode "Court Martial," although it sounds like a very bad mistake on behalf of the writers, Spock determines Ben Finney's location as "B Deck, in or near engineering." Presumeably by "B Deck" he meant the engineering/stardrive section of the ship. However, in "Star Trek II," after Kirk and the landing party plus the Regula I Lab survivors have returned to the Enterprise from the Genesis cave in Regula, Kirk goes to board one of the turbolifts only to be told by Spock, "They're inoperative below C Deck." -Anonymous, 8 July 2005 Five year missions You know, it was never really stated that the Enterprise ever went on any five-year missions besides the TOS run under Kirk. We have no idea how long Pike and April commanded the ship, nor how long Admiral Kirk did after TMP. Is it really enough to assume that since the exploration initiative of the 2260s entailed a five-year mission, that means all the ship's journeys are five year missions? I think that it would fit better thematically if we just stated the GENERAL time period of each of those eras (April, Pike, post TMP Kirk, then Spock) rather than trying to assume each one was a standardized five-year mission (a concept never referenced again in any Trek) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:05, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I thought that it was said in "The Cage" that Enterprise was on a five-year mission. And if both Pike and Kirk took the ship on a five-year mission, we can safely assume that it was quite normal in that time that missions of exploration took five years. Ottens 21:55, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::And if you consider that even starships can't make anti-matter out of thin air, they'd eventually have to turn back to refuel. If they took enough antimatter with them, 5 years sounds about right. -- Redge 22:54, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::A TNG Tec manual suggest that a galaxy Class ship has a device that can create Antimatter. Although it's never cannonlly brought up, Kirk did say there power source renews itself in "The Mark of Gideon". --TOSrules 08:26, Feb 9, 2005 (CET) :::Ottens: There was no opening monologue in "The Cage" with the 'five-year mission' line. Unless someone said it in the episode dialogue, it just isn't true.. :::Redge: Well, yes, this makes sense, but in Star Trek VI we see that the Excelsior was only on a three year mission. Its obvious supplies and outfitting are not the only factor in determining mission length, and it might be unrealistic to assume that all of the Enterprise(s) careers have voyages of the exact same durations, due to the possibility of other circumstances. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying that we might be speculating unnecessarily, when the tone of this work should probably dictate we relate the canon facts (the length of Pikes command, the amount of intervening years between episodes and films) without making baseless reasonings. --Captain Mike K. Bartel :I wasn't certain if it was in the opening lines. It was only a question. ;) :See this link http://www.ydg.com/trek5/trek_pitch.pdf. It is Gene Roddenberry's original plan for "Star Trek". I quote from page nine, paragraph IV of "Captain Pike's orders": "Galaxy exploration and Class M investigation: 5 years." So known that Captain Pike's mission was to take 5 years, and Kirk's mission also, we can quite safely assume that it was quite common in that time for missions of exploration to last over a perdiod of 5 years.Ottens 23:12, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Excellent point, I'd be quite happy to take Roddenberry's draft as canon, seeing as it was the blueprint of the series and heavily based in it. From Pike's later appearance we know he was commanded the Enterprise for more than 11 years. Are we sure this was two five year missions? Maybe it was one five year mission and a series of shorter explorations, or perhaps there was a long refit or some other unexpected occurrence cut a mission short or restarted it. I just don't like assuming that nothing more expansive than what has been seen exists. Pike's command could very well have involved more fantastic circumstances which prevented it from being two five-year missions with intervening refit time. I don't think we should present data when the possibility some different occurence could prove Okuda's assumption false. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 00:26, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::The article says "CO for 11 years"... Ottens 10:15, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::I think it's ridicules to use original plans on Memory alpha beyond a side note. There are many original plans that never come to be (IE USS Yorktown), some that are refuted in canon. In this case the original idea of a 5 year mission for Pike was given to Kirk instead. Nice link BTW --TOSrules 08:48, Feb 9, 2005 (CET) Original Picture And Use Of CGI Enterprise Are there any pictures on MA with the original version of Enterprise, from TOS? I know there's one from , but is there one from one of the original episodes? zsingaya 19:46, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) :With shots of the DS9 model and CGI renderings from ENT and the Remastered TOS being favorably used over screencaps of the original model, I seriously doubt it. On that topic: Is it absolutely necessary that we have to use the (poorly done) CGI model from ENT as the top profile image for the USS Enterprise? If so, could we at least use the (high-def) CBS Remastered model rendering of the NCC-1701? That CGI model does the Enterprise justice I feel, and it is virtually THE EXACT SAME SHOT! I'm practically begging you guys to consider my proposal. --AC84 05:36, 23 September 2006. :If you'll look again, MOST of the TOS Enterprise shots in that section of the aritcle ARE caps from the original episodes.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::When used as prime examples, the DS9 model or ENT CGI model is often preferred. And that's fine, but we're never given a good shot from DS9's T&T and the model from ENT's TATV doesn't even look detailed. With the CBS Remastered CGI model, we are given some beautiful and utterly outstanding shots of the USS Enterprise. I think we should use that model for the top of the page. --AC84 09:25, 23 September 2006 Command crew subsection of "Kirk's five-year mission" Ilia and Saavak were a part of the command crew. HOWEVER they were NOT a part of the command crew until AFTER 2270, the date Kirk's five-year mission ended. To Boldly Go Section I question the need for this section. If kept it is woefully incomplete (what of V'ger? Contacting the First Federation? Finding Khan? Every other episode?) and should be revised for style and verbiage (e.g., "home galaxy"; "Beside the fact that Starfleet ships and their crews outrage standard", and similar such things). I recommend it just be removed from the article. Aholland 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :I've revised and expanded this article, and worked a couple of the points mentioned from that section into the history. Much of the five-year mission additions are lifted from the James T. Kirk article, part of an effort to trim that beast down. These additions mostly focus on feats of the ship itself, rather than otherwise character-driven events. :There were a lot of other errors, canon conflicts, and lack of citations in the article. (I'm to blame for a lot of that from a past edit) Hopefully it looks better now. The history of the name "Enterprise" has been moved to the end because, it seemed to me, more appropriate there. This is all pretty rough, and I'll come back to it with fresh eyes later. --Aurelius Kirk 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC) ::Forgive my saying so, but this article is turning into a collection of TV Guide-style synopses. Why are some, but not all, of the TOS shows summarized here? Surely the Enterprise was there for all of them? But more importantly: why are any of them here? Is it really important to an article on the Enterprise that Kirk made contact with the Gorn? This article should be corrected for conflicts and the like, but not to turn it into a series of synopses of events that happened to take place around, but only marginally involve, the Enterprise. I propose that the lengthy section on what Kirk did be removed (reference it to Kirk if necessary) and the broad history and specific descriptions of the ship instead be the focus of this article. Aholland 04:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC) :::Forgiven :) I'm sympathetic to your point (as I think I understand it). You're right about the Gorn citation, it needs to be reworked to emphasise the engagement over first contact, or be removed. This portion is definitely flawed, but not different than the encapsulated, episodic ship's histories of other major starship articles on MA. I don't want to see every episode cited -- but battles, slingshots through time, extra-galactic probes, Tholian web, M5... that's significant history, relevant to the ship and should be included. Otherwise, it's a ship name, a few dates and a crew list with a "see also" link to . I'd love to digest the ship's history into a 3-4 paragraph narrative that reads well, but that's beyond my ability while keeping inline with MA standards and citation guidelines -- at least at the moment. I'll keep on this tonight and see if I can't improve it. --Aurelius Kirk 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC) ::Sounds like a plan! (And I think that the Gorn cite will probably end up dropping out since - from a ship's standpoint - it wasn't as significant as, say, extra-galactic travel.) Thanks. Aholland 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC) :::It looks like I need to do some homework before I can write an accurate, consise prose history. The fruits of this might be useful elsewhere in MA as well. I've begun compiling a "scorecard" of the TOS/TAS events, compliling a list of first contacts, battles, speed records, deaths, etc. The beginnings of the project, including samples of a "Ships's Log" sidebar addition for episode articles, are on my user page. If someone can point out a similar resource elsewhere on the web to help me, or if you have comments on my "homework", let me know here. --Aurelius Kirk 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC) :::It took longer than I hoped, but I've posted a new History of the five-year mission, more from the ship's POV. The stats (planets, first contacts, crew deaths) are based on the 5-yr mission scorecard I've compilied on my user page. So far, it's only based on TOS, as I haven't digested much of TAS, and the range of dates 2265 to 2269 given to those stats in this article try to reflect that omission. I've yet to work in the "Enterprise" speed records. Sorry, but I kept the Gorn and significant first contacts, as I think the crew's efforts are more significant than only technical data, and why the ship is remembered a century later. --Aurelius Kirk 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 43 officers?(!) how do we know the ship had 43 officers and 387 crew? should this be removed? -- Captain M.K.B. 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Sidebar info from article I removed this info when changing to the new sidebar format: Most of the information belongs on anyway (and is currently present there), the rest is either available in the article text already, or probably speculation (see section above this). -- Cid Highwind 12:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) PNA Explanation Article lacks information from Star Trek: The Animated Series. --Defiant 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :Especially now that the DVDs have been released, there is no reason not to have this content. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 2272 was not a very good year? Some here doesn't like the precise date of 2272 as the date the V'ger Crises happened, I don't see why not but if so then the page for the year 2272 should be deleted since it has on it the incident as to when V'ger happened, and they maybe many other instances of historical references and people using 2272 as a reference. Hunter2005-A 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Damage Inconsistencies I was watching Wrath of Khan recently, and I caught something that made me think of this commentary on inconsistencies in battle damage between Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock" other areas of the ship that hadn't been damaged by Khan's attack had battle damage, including the starboard secondary hull, both nacelles, and the top of the saucer. The author of this comment is correct in that none of the damage mentioned here is seen on the model in any exterior shots. However, with the exception of the damage to the nacelles, the damage to the starboard secondary hull and the dorsal area of the saucer appears to have been intended but not actually implemented on the model. I can't find the screen capture I want, but in the scene directly following Khan's first attack on the Enterprise, Spock points to damage indicators on a schematic of the ship. Indicators are clearly seen in two places on the saucer that correspond to where damage is seen in Search for Spock, the port side rear quarter. Similarly, Spock points to damage indicators on a dorsal-view schematic of the secondary hull which clearly indicates damage on the port and starboard sides. It's quite possible that whomever was in ruling on consistency wanted to make the damage on the model consistent with the attacks that were actually filmed, but at the time the scene was shot with Spock and Kirk looking at damage indicators, there may have been the intention to film a more extensive sequence of the Reliant firing on the Enterprise. -Raiyven In the first battle between the ships, there is a scene where a display indicates where the damage in the engineering section is and it occurs on both sides of the hull. The starboard side hull damage was supposed to be from Khan's strafing run of the engineering section (apparently the phasers were supposed to have cut through everything in between and exit the ship). Enterprise from teaser Should someone (me?) add the shot of the Enterprise under construction from the teaser? --WTRiker 02:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) :Nope. First of all, it won't be canon until it appears in the film. Secondly, until the film's released, the images or information can't be used in articles other than the film's article based on our spoiler policy. :) -- Sulfur 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)